Here at DU we oppose: nuclear power, oil pipelines, fracking, burning coal.

[Buzz Clik]

Are we willing to accept the consequences of not having those energy options available?

[PDJane]

1. Whether we do or no,

We have no way to fix what all of those options, excepting wind, do to the planet.

[luckyleftyme2]

73. we could nationalize the oil companies

we could nationalize the oil companies like so many countries have had to do over the years!
this probably would end 50% 0f the wars on this planet and end the price crisis we have!
I'm sure the former Bush administration and the other left over dinosaurs would fight this tooth and nail! but it would def. cut down on bought and paid for puppets we have in congress!

[Squinch]

76. Too easy, too logical, too not going to happen. Tragically.

[Tempest]

2. Correction

Here at DU "SOME MEMBERS" oppose: nuclear power, oil pipelines, fracking, burning coal, and wind power.

I don't have a problem with wind power.

Lumping everyone together is not only wrong, it's ignorant.

[Buzz Clik]

6. Ok. Eliminate wind from the list.

Do you want these forms of energy eliminated now? Are you willing to suffer the consequences of doing so?

[Tempest]

12. Stepping, stepping, stepping back

You're too funny.

[Buzz Clik]

15. Is that question just too difficult to answer?

[Squinch]

77. Stop fracking, nationalize oil, suspend nuclear, invest heavily in renewable energy with

all that oil subsidy money we've saved and then, a few years into that, ask me about coal.

Yes. I would.

[Electric Monk]

8. Massive air spill at wind farm reported, some residents said to enjoy the breeze

[temporary311]

3. We oppose wind?

Guess I didn't get the memo. Kind of hard for us to be a monolithic bloc when you guys dont forward the memo to everyone.

[Fla_Democrat]

5. Did you get the memo on the TPS reports?

[Buzz Clik]

7. There are those here that do, but I modified my question in the OP.

Can you answer the question now?

[Fla_Democrat]

4. I didn't get the memo...

what's the beef with wind power? Not complaining, mind you, just asking. Though wind was suppose to be clean and renewable?

[Buzz Clik]

10. Lots of DUers oppose wind power for various reasons. But, I modified the question and dropped wind.

What would your answer be?

[Fla_Democrat]

35. Ok, no. I am not wiling to accept, not having those sources.

Last edited Sun Mar 31, 2013, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)

I think they should be used until a viable alternative is discovered. We still need to power our cities, we need to move goods and people across distances. When Dilithium crystals, and Beryllium Spheres are plentiful and in use, we can move past the current power options.

[Posteritatis]

48. Mix of NIMBY and people claiming it makes people sick. (nt)

[Blue_Tires]

65. I remember that bunch

Those types never stick around long...

[Fla_Democrat]

72. I thought it may have been the birds

Wasn't sure. I recall hearing that every year quite a few birds are killed by the turbines. If that was the case, I would have thought there was a way to discourage birds from getting too close, developed by now.

Hadn't heard about it making people sick, thanks for the heads up.

[Posteritatis]

74. There's a fuss about a wind farm in my neck of the woods citing mysterious plagues of some sort

Everyone claiming they've been getting sicker and sicker since they started building the things - never mind actually starting them spinning - which to me screams that they're outraging themselves into physical illness and causing others to start feeling the same way through the shrillness.

Then I started coming across articles which point out that that is exactly what was going on..

[TheKentuckian]

9. I do not oppose wind power. Being that I am not keen on the consequences of having

nuclear power, fracking, and oil pipelines I am forced to accept the consequences of not having them which ever increasingly seem smaller than the opposite.

Either way there are consequences, I'll own mine if you own yours. I see no indication that you will because you seem to assign a privileged position to the status quo.

[Buzz Clik]

11. I didn't take a position on this. I asked a question.

And you answered it. Do you drive? Air condition your home? Own a computer?

Much of that will change...

[TheKentuckian]

96. Yup, impact on those things is inevitable either way.

Stewardship demands we look to what will emerge from that crossroads.

There is far less choice here than the statement implies as if one will allow what we are accustomed to continue more or less as it has been more or less in perpetuity but that isn't even approaching true either.

I do believe that the sooner and more serious we change course, the less the adverse impacts will be as well as less drastic the day to day effects will be for the average person and the higher our ceiling as a species will be.

[randome]

13. The consequences of having many of these available is death for the planet.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

14. we don't have to

we just need to accept the inconveniences of transitioning to sustainable sources, and learning not to be such energy hogs.

[Buzz Clik]

16. Excellent answer (the only answer to my question thus far)

How long a transition is acceptable? 5 years? 10?

The economy of this country is 100% dependent upon readily available energy.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

18. then we should stop wasting half of what we produce.

US energy use chart shows we waste more than half of our energy
http://phys.org/news/2011-04-energy_1.html

Energy is Wasted, Wasted, Wasted...
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/energy-is-wasted-wasted-wasted.html

10 Smart Ways We Could Stop Wasting Energy
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/efficiency/10-smart-ways-we-could-stop-wasting-energy#slide-1

We could do it in 5 years, if we tried. I'll see it in my lifetime..because we will have no other choice.

[yurbud]

22. if we had fast, frequent mass transit that people actually used, that would cut use a lot

[Benton D Struckcheon]

33. Love that last link

Great stuff in there. Now all I have to do is get a waste heat to energy converter to sit atop my wood stove's chimney and I'm done.

[Squinch]

79. Energy companies are invested in our wasting energy.

[BlueStreak]

36. A 20-year transition is acceptable if we commit to that today

The problem is not the transition schedule. The problem is the dominance of our system by the dirty energy industries.

The reality is that innovations will accompany the commitment. We are already near the point where solar and wind can stand on their own. And if you factor in the massive subsidies to oil and coal (in terms of our military costs to preserve oil and our environmental / health cost resulting from coal), they are already MORE economical.

The big impediments now are not price per kilowatt-hour. The big impediments are storage, and a viable transportation model. But those things are coming along as well.

Just this week, there was an announcement of breakthroughs in the efficiency of the electrolysis process, which makes hydrogen production and large-scale storage much more viable. EV cars are coming along. My view is that a pure EV will always be a niche product for limited urban driving. ("Always" is a long time. Let's say for at least 25 years.) But hydrogen fuel cells are on a faster time-line, and combined with greater efficiency in electrolysis, that could be both economically and technologically practical for mainstream transportation by about 2022.

That won't take care of over-the-road trucks and other heavy machinery, but they are already moving to natural gas. Natural gas isn't totally clean, but it is much better than Diesel fuel, and 100 times cleaner than coal. So we'd probably need a 30-year horizon for the heaviest equipment.

[Fumesucker]

49. Jimmy Carter had the right idea

Remember "The moral equivalent of war"?

But Ronaldus Maximus had the solar panels pulled off the White House first thing.

We would be in far, far better shape today in so many ways without the Reagan legacy, "Mourning in America" indeed.

We could go to renewables in five years if we put a WWII level of effort to it, I'm talking Normandy, Guadalcanal, Coral Sea, scrap drives, Victory Gardens, rationing of consumables, Manhattan Project, the whole enchilada.

But we won't, we'll fuck around until our hands are totally forced by circumstances. After the last time gas went to $4 a gallon back when Dubya was resident it took about two months after gas came back down for the F150 to recapture the top selling vehicle laurels.

We are addicts and won't change our ways until we hit rock bottom.

[yurbud]

19. if you look at how it has gone in Germany, it's hardly been inconvenient

The first graph illustrates what a typical day on the electricity market in Germany looked like in March four years ago; the second illustrates what is happening now, with 25GW of solar PV installed across the country. Essentially, it means that solar PV is not just licking the cream off the profits of the fossil fuel generators — as happens in Australia with a more modest rollout of PV — it is in fact eating their entire cake.

Deutsche Bank solar analyst Vishal Shah noted in a report last month that EPEX data was showing solar PV was cutting peak electricity prices by up to 40%, a situation that utilities in Germany and elsewhere in Europe were finding intolerable. “With Germany adopting a drastic cut, we expect major utilities in other European countries to push for similar cuts as well,” Shah noted.

Analysts elsewhere said one quarter of Germany’s gas-fired capacity may be closed, because of the impact of surging solar and wind capacity. Enel, the biggest utility in Italy, which had the most solar PV installed in 2011, highlighted its exposure toreduced peaking prices when it said that a €5/MWh fall in average wholesale prices would translate into a one-third slump in earnings from the generation division.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/03/27/why-generators-are-terrified-of-solar/

[Viva_La_Revolution]

24. nice.

great links, thanks!

[chknltl]

31. Bookmarking link. Thanks.

Now glad I decided to read this thread.

[tom2255]

41. Seems like a no brainer.

Benefits for everybody.

[yurbud]

44. except those who profit from energy sources they can monopolize

[Sharpie]

46. While we may transition to other sources...

The requirements will never drop. They will only continue to increase...

[arcane1]

52. That is why we are doomed

As long as wasting energy equals freedom, and as long as the cult of growth lives on, the odds of survival diminish.

[yurbud]

17. It's not on or off, all or nothing, with the exception of maybe nuclear power.

I suspect most of us would be happy with "no new dirty energy" and phasing out the dirty energy as we build capacity with the clean.

[SomethingFishy]

20. All the things you listed are finite sources of energy

So at some point we are going to have to start considering alternative sources of energy. There is no pat answer or easy fix. The fact is, had Reagan not crushed Carters moves towards solar, we would probably be getting 30% of our energy from the sun by now.

One advantage is corporations are slowly starting to see that there is lots of money to be made in clean energy, if they are willing to make long term investments. This may end up a case where corporate greed could be used to actually help us.

[AverageJoe90]

28. Sad but probably true.

The good news is, is that is appears that the tipping point for a mass rejection of oil, coal, and gas, and the mass acceptance of biodiesel(think: veggie oil), hemp(mainly for powering some automobiles, but not just that), solar, wind, and other renewables(such as biochar, another neat fuel that could be used to power autos, particularly older models), may be closer than many of us think.

[Buzz Clik]

39. Excellent answer. Thanks.

[dkf]

21. I've seen reports of health problems near wind farms due to low frequency vibrations.

I wouldn't want to live close to one. Also no nuclear plans near a plate like ours.

Other than that, we need energy to run our economy. I wish we went heavily for solar though.

[Tikki]

23. YES...we are a clever, resourceful lot...and once we understand we 'have to", we will...

make it happen...NUKE is so waste-full.



Tikki

[Arcanetrance]

25. We can invest in mass solar grids and wind power for our energy uses.

And after those are built we can take the other forms of power offline. Nuclear power is a huge disaster. As are oil, fracking, and coal. I think we can replace those and still live the lives we are accustomed to. We can even replace our current vehicles with solar electric cars and hydrogen cars that could have the same power as current cars.

[bluedigger]

26. I don't oppose oil pipelines categorically.

I oppose using existing infrastructure to pump tar sands for which they were not designed at volumes far greater than they have done previously. We move most of our fossil fuels by pipeline with a decent, if far from perfect, level of reliability, and have done so for decades. Like the majority of our national infrastructure, we have been derelict in maintaining it for the future, but that is a different discussion.

[Cleita]

27. I think we need to start thinking about dialing back our energy needs.

I've gone on week long camping trips so I know you can live without electricity if you need to. I know people who live in the woods and are off the grid completely. They have come up with innovative ways to keep their food fresh without refrigeration. They do use solar but know that they have to space out their electricity needs, like watching TV or using the computer, not both at the same time.

[AverageJoe90]

29. Which may work for some. Not all, though.

And just reducing energy consumption probably won't have much of a positive impact on AGW reduction, I suspect, unless we continue to accelerate our push for renewables as well.

[Cleita]

30. If I had to spend twelve hours a day without electricity, it would be worth it just

to get our local nuclear power plant decommissioned and unlicensed. I really want it gone and if it takes that until renewable energy can be implemented, it would be worth it to me. We are only one 8 point earthquake from a Fukushima type disaster here on the West Coast that would impact far more of the western USA than just a meltdown.

I know hospitals and other critical industries would have to be exempted, but most of us could do without.

[ChazII]

32. Several homes in my neighborhood have installed

solar panels on their roofs. Slowly people are taking steps to get off of fossils fuels.

To answer your question, personally, I'd like to have two sources of energy should we lose power. Sort of like folks have generators back east. (Hope this makes sense.) I know of one person down Tucson way who lives completely off the grid. I really enjoy the comforts of modern life as in not having to cook over an open fire. So in a word, no, I am not ready to accept all of the consequences of not having energy options.

[Buzz Clik]

38. Slow transition. That's the key and the unspoken point of my OP.

We want reduced carbon emissions, sustainability, long term solutions. Although we are not there yet, we need to keep pressing forward.

Weening ourselves from our overconsumption of energy is a first step.

[ChazII]

43. No clothes dryer

is the one small step my family has made. To be honest we never had a clothes dryer and have always used the clothes line. We are blessed to live in an area that has 300+ days of sunshine and no HOA. The neighborhood is 50+ years old. I don't know if clotheslines help in the long run but it is our contribution. We jokingly call it our solar dryer.

[Buzz Clik]

55. Every bit helps.

Are you able to keep your AC to a minimum?

[ChazII]

60. We keep our house

set at 80. Warm but livable when it's 110+ outside.

[99Forever]

34. Strawman, much?

[Buzz Clik]

37. Is your irony intentional or unintentional?

That's a rhetorical question. I'm not at all interested in your response.

[99Forever]

40. Big freakin' surprise.

You don't have much interest in ANYONE'S response that doesn't agree with your view.

[Buzz Clik]

42. How the hell would you know?

You didn't even bother with a response.

DU is littered with people like you who contribute NOTHING.

[99Forever]

70. That's simply not true.

My response is literary shorthand for saying that your make a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. ( In this case, even your "opponent" is nothing more than a generalized statement about an entire group of people, ie: DU.)

Perhaps saying "a false broad generalization" might have been a better fit. Responding that the framing of your argument isn't correct, is, whether you like it or not, a valid response. That it makes you so defensive to have it pointed out, is something for self-reflection.

[limpyhobbler]

45. Which consequences do you mean?

As far as I know things are going to improve greatly if we stop using fossil fuels and wasting resources.

I think a better question would be: Are people willing to accept the consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuels?

If you want to, say what consequences you are talking about.

[Buzz Clik]

56. The economy runs on energy, and lots of it.

Transportation, industry, business, agriculture. All of it, and not all of it can use solar, wind, etc. There is no electric combine for wheat.

[limpyhobbler]

62. Oh.

I think we can create an electric combine for wheat. Is there some reason we can't make that? BTW what is a combine?

We need to invent some new electric powered things to replace the gas & diesel powered stuff. Like for construction equipment.

But you have a real point I'm not trying to diminish it. Some cultural changes will be required. For example I doubt people will be able to continue using jet airplanes as much as they have been. We'll have to keep it to a minimum, to minimize our use of oil. Is that kind of your point? That we still need some oil? Yeah but the less the better. We should probably try to make our economies more local so we can reduce the transportation expense.

So yes some serious cultural changes will be needed, like more local economies. That's not a bad thing if it allows us to survive on earth.

We have to start slowing the acceleration of fossil fuel burning.

Some people think we should keep accelerating greenhouse gas emissions until... indefinitely.

The technology exists now to get started on at least slowing the pace of coal and oil extraction.

Necessity is the mother of invention. We have to start slowing coal and oil to create the sense of necessity to encourage new technologies like awesome batteries.

Some people seem to think we are at risk of stopping fossil fuels to fast or too abruptly. I had the impression that you might think that, but I could be wrong.

But from reading the news every day I get the impression we are not at any risk of stopping fossil fuels too quickly. If we stopped all fossil fuels overnight that would be calamity, because everything runs on it. But that's just imaginary stuff. Real life looks more like we are accelerating drilling everywhere we can, scraping out every last drop. We aren't slowing down at all, so it's not like we're at risk of stopping fossil fuels too quickly as far as I know. All the risk that I know of is that we are not slowing the fossil fuels fast enough.

[Buzz Clik]

63. "Some people seem to think we are at risk of stopping fossil fuels to fast or too abruptly."

Not me. We need to cut fossil fuels out of the equation as quickly as possible, and that keeps nukes on the table.

[limpyhobbler]

66. oh gotcha

I see where you're coming from now. You have a lot of company here I think.

I try not to talk about nuclear at all, not taking a side. Maybe somebody will invent a nuclear powered wheat combine. just kidding

[otherone]

47. yes!

[Buzz Clik]

57. I don't get it. Are those VWs plucked from trees in organic gardens?

How do you propose to smelt metals in that vehicle on solar power?

[retread]

50. Everyone at DU opposes nuclear power, oil pipelines, fracking, and burning coal? I must still be

logging into the Old DU.

[AdHocSolver]

51. The problem is that wasteful uses of resources are profitable.

An example is the use of corn to make ethanol to add to gasoline.

It takes more oil, natural gas, and coal to make ethanol to replace oil than is saved by using ethanol.

Using ethanol in place of gasoline reduces gas mileage.

Growing corn to make ethanol reduces the supply of corn for food and other uses and that drives up the cost of food.

The higher price of corn has induced agribusinesses to switch to corn production over other crops which has led to overproduction of corn.

Agribusinesses want to get rid of the overproduction by adding more ethanol to gasoline producing E15 gasoline.

Not only will this make for more waste and pollution, but I have read that this may damage some engines.

The major problem is that waste and pollution are profitable. If this planet has to wait for corporations to see the error of their ways, it may be too late.

[Niceguy1]

53. I support the use of those

Options until the tech is there to make the gradual transition to cleaner sources. For it to be successful the energy source must be reliable if it is to gain acceptance and widespread use.

[Buzz Clik]

58. I see it that way, too.

[greytdemocrat]

54. I don't oppose any on your list.

They can and will all be used. I have no desire to
go back to a horsey and candles.

We will come up with something better eventually.

[Buzz Clik]

59. Apparently there are more of us at DU than I ever imagined.

We must not be very vocal.

[greytdemocrat]

61. Well...

It's just all the radiation and diesel fumes slow us down a little.

[Buzz Clik]

64. +1

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. Sorry, I don't think this game is being played on a level playing field

There has never been even a tiny fraction of the government subsidies that underwrote the nuclear power industry made available for solar research or development. Keep in mind how much of the tab was picked up by the pentagon for every step needed in the nuclear fuel cycle. If I am not mistaken there has been more federal funding available for research on fusion energy than on solar. The oil industry as we know has huge tax loopholes to this very day - and it isn't exactly a start up enterprise. Meanwhile the auto industry, for example, has generally fought (with big oil helping fund the lobbyists) efforts to increase gas efficiency ratings and has done so for decades.

The energy sources already controlled by major energy corporations, and those that require massive costly centralized infrastructure (such as nuclear) that only the largest corporations are in a position to profit from developing building and managing, are the ones continually supported through our nation's energy policy priorities. Decentralized ways of producing power, which can be pursued through solar and wind on every scale down to the personal, constantly get nickle and dimed, which in turns keeps unit production costs higher and less competitive. This is intentional and designed to protect the interests of those who profit most from the status quo.

Meanwhile the cheapest and easiest to tap source of new energy, so to speak, is aggressive conservation - and that doesn't mean making people shiver in the dark. It does mean retrofitting old buildings, and establishing new building regulations for energy efficiency construction that more than pays for the up front increased costs over the course of a decade It involves better off peak load energy production planning and increasing energy efficiency in all types of appliances from the personal to the industrial. It means co-generation and capturing and re-using waste heat sources, and so much more. But none of that is in the interest of Exxon.

And like others have pointed out above, few of us expect a sudden shut down in the use of all fossil fuels. Not all natural gas is produced by fracking, not all oil wells are deep water wells in fragile eco-systems etc.

[Buzz Clik]

68. Your opening claim is an interesting one.

Over the past decade, a tremendous amount of money has been poured into wind energy subsidies. Billions.

I'd be curious to see exactly how wind stacks up versus nuclear for subsidies.

Not all natural gas is produced by fracking

A different topic, but we clearly have disagreements here as well. I grant you that plenty of natural gas is produced without fracking, but your statement implies more than that. Another time...

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. The government bankrolled the nuclear industry from day one

"Atoms for Peace" was a byproduct of massive military spending for nuclear arms. That is how we got nuclear reactors. Research etc. into waste "containment" occurred because of the need to manage military radioactive wastes etc. This stuff wasn't done on the cheap. Then there is Price Anderson for just one other example. The Nuclear Power industry has federal insurance guarantees against potentially catastrophic liabilities in the result of accidents etc. without which the industry could not afford to function competitively. Recent wind subsidies are a drop in the bucket compared to what nuclear received to get off the ground. On the scale we are talking about, "billions" for wind over a decade is relatively small change. An individual nuclear power plant costs that much

[Kolesar]

81. Nukes were subsidized by over $50 billion last time I checked

Such has not been the case for wind energy. Got numbers?

[Buzz Clik]

83. Ok...

I guess I get to do what you just estimated:

Total support for nuclear power over the 56 years was $65 billion, 9% of the total incentives.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Energy-Subsidies-and-External-Costs/#.UVm95JPCZ8E

About two-thirds of the $24 billion Washington spent on energy subsidies in 2011 went to support energy efficiency and renewable sources such as wind, solar and biofuels
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/18/us/us-energy-subsidies

[Kolesar]

88. Alcohol?

You're not supposed to drink the sterno.

[Junkdrawer]

71. Are we willing to accept the consequences of those energy sources?

How about the kids?

[LanternWaste]

75. I'm unaware of any major collective premise which denies any and all use of the fuels

I'm unaware of any major collective premise which denies any and all use of the fuels you've mentioned; merely a reduction in their use.

[Buzz Clik]

84. Yes, a few people here have chosen to answer my question with exactly that reply.

It's irrelevant, but you certainly can leave it at that if you so choose.

[Newest Reality]

78. Are they having a sale

on broad brushes somewhere?

[snooper2]

80. Need more nuke plants...

and we need research, 100's of billions, into fusion---


FUSION is the future..

[Kolesar]

82. We waste most of the energy from those *finite* resources you mention.

Cut out the waste, deploy renewable energy and compressed air storage, and then we can get by with a fraction of thos resources with scant *consequences*. Thanks for asking.

[Buzz Clik]

85. A fraction? Clearly. But, 1/1 is a fraction.

You have this way of making semi-quantitative pronouncement with no documentation.

[Kolesar]

86. Wow. Worked real hard on that one, didn't you? eom

[Buzz Clik]

87. Not this time. I fetched your data for you up thread. I will not do it again.

[Javaman]

89. I have solar panels on my home...

I got a 5 dollar refund last month for generating too much power.

I drive a plug in hybrid.

I'm doing just fine.

And to the folks that say, "I can't afford solar panels", after everything was said and done, with the fed rebate and tax deduction, it cost me 5K, which will be paid off in just over 5 years.

[Buzz Clik]

90. Well done! Curious about your plug in

Which one? Do you like it?

I am considering one...

[Javaman]

91. It's still fresh out of the wrapper. LOL

We only got it a little over 2 weeks ago: 2012 Prius. We got it on a deal. Last one in old inventory. Didn't want to wait for the 2013 model.

My GF only drives 3 miles to work each day. So far so good and she loves how quiet it is. She plugs it in at night and it's charged by morning. Not that it needs a lot.

Not enough time with it to really determine good or bad, but I have a 2010 Prius and that's been solid, that's why we went with an other toyota.

[Buzz Clik]

94. Excellent.

Be sure to update us after a month or two.

Maybe after your first tank of gas ... sometime this summer.

[Zorra]

92. I'm running my computer, blasting Pink, and charging my phone on solar energy right now.

The consequence of not having those energy options available may be long term survival of the planet.

[LiberalEsto]

93. YES

I'm not willing to accept the consequences of those energy options

[Buzz Clik]

95. Should they be phased out immediately? Like, next year?